A theory on GH for JtR

[Sally]

Hi All

Thankyou, Rubyretro and Garry, for your responses.

Rubyretro, I agree - we cannot know how often Sarah Lewis visited Miller's Court, so that one's open for speculation. Whether or not Hutchinson recognised her is, I think, besides the point. She evidently did not recognise him. We cannot know whether she knew him or not. Again, it's open for speculation.

My point was simply that the idea that Hutchinson came forward out of fear that Sarah Lewis would identify him is unconvincing - to me at least - because her recollection of seeing him - if indeed, it was him - was not good enough to do so. Her physical description of him is generic - apart from the Wideawake hat. She is apparently more interested in what her man is doing than what he looks like. I think that is quite understandable - it's odd behaviour - it's not surprising that she noticed.

Garry - I don't believe I said that I thought Hutchinson was a timewaster - and besides, that's a rather fast and loose term in my view. It is not that I am looking at an aspect of this subject in isolation; I was simply trying to address a point without getting too embroiled. I know where Great Pearl Street is, which is why I used the term 'immediate'.

And I agree with you. I think that Hutchinson probably did come forward as a direct consequence of Lewis' testimony. Clearly, there is an intimate relationship between the two events which is hard to account for in terms of pure co-incidence.

I don't believe that he came forward out of fear however, for reasons outlined above.

[Rubyretro]

Sally...let's put Mrs Lewis aside for a mo'...Obviously we can't divorce his reasons totally from Mrs Lewis's statement, but if 'fear' wasn't the main motivation then what do you think about my other possible reason for Hutch coming forward ?

I am often loath to dismiss one reason for doing something -or one theory - when motivation may be a mixture of things and not something clearcut in real life.

[Sally]

Hi Rubyretro - of course, you are right; motives for specific actions are quite often complex. I stand corrected - I should perhaps have said that I think fear unlikely to have been Hutchinson's primary mover in coming forward - again, from the reasoning outlined above.

I do see that he may have wanted to 'cover his bases', if that term will do.

As to your question. Yes of course it is possible that Hutchinson was a killer - or should I say, the killer, and in line with parallels, may have wanted to put himself in the hot seat for the thrill of it.

I am yet to be convinced, although I will give that theory some credence. I don't say that I consider Hutchinson to have been an innocent wanderer into the case - no, because that would require a certain naivety which I'm afraid I don't possess.

I think it unlikely that he came forward 'just' for the attention, although he does look like an attention-seeker to me. It is most likely, in my view that a person would need a powerful driver to act as Hutchinson did. My curiousity - if it can be called that - is what that driver was. I don't think 5 minutes of fame is good enough - particularly in an age and culture arguably less fame-obsessed than our own.

Why, as an example, could it have not been a case of pure anti-Semitism? We can see that what he does is put a Jew at the scene. Hatred is a powerful motivator - so maybe that accounts for it. People have done far worse than that for the sake of racial hatred, haven't they?

That's one thought.

So, in brief, I wouldn't discount your theory, but I think there are other plausible explanations.

[Rubyretro]

pure speculation -but I can see how Hutch could be racist: he was a labourer
looking for short term contracts at the bottom end of the job market, and in a precarious position.

All those immigrants would be getting off the boats and in direct competition for jobs, and so forcing wages down. They would also be pretty docile in front of the bosses and grateful for work It's easy to see what the men at the Victoria Home might have to say about them..

That's the ones at the lowest end of the scale..

The intellectuals were busy organising themselves and fighting back to change the system -not something that the ordinary working man at the Victoria Home would appreciate either..probably seeing them as 'trouble makers' in a long established society, rather then on the same side...

[The Good Michael]

Sally,

One thing you may want to look at is the comparison of the Hutchinson signatures on this site. You should be convinced that Hutchinson is George William Topping Hutchinson after that, as there are no other candidates that we know of for the signatures. Combine that with the alleged son's testimony, and we have our Hutch. He could still be the murderer, but we know that he raised a family and was married twice (I believe) with no foul play.

Be warned that the signature threads are not friendly.

Mike

[Fleetwood Mac]

I know that your reply is to Abby, Fleetwood, but since I'm 'online' at the same time as you and read it first...I can't resist replying.

First of all there is the thing that Lawende may have been way off in his description, and also said that he would not be able to identify the man he saw again. Hutch lived much nearer to Miller's Court than Mitre Square, and Mrs Lewis might have been someone that HE recognised (and so feared), whereas Lawende was a total stranger.

Another explanation is that Lawende never saw JtR at all. I was very taken with the logic in Richard's Post about the echoing footsteps in Mitre Square and the fact that Morris didn't hear anything, although he was awake with the door ajar. Also why JtR would cross the Square with (a strangely silent )Eddowes, when he could have murdered her just after the passage.

Could it be that JtR and Eddowes came in from Mitre street, never crossed the Square at all, and Lawende saw a couple that were nothing to do with the 'Event' ?


to far corner, instead of murdering her straight

It could....but then I was responding to the idea that somehow Lawende is linked to Hutchinson as JTR.

[Fleetwood Mac]

General reply.....

The stand out feature from Hutchinson's testomony is not: 'he was of Jewish appearance'....but rather Hutchinson takes care to paint this man as a wealthy fellow.....it takes up far more of Hutchinson's statement than the Jewish angle.

The most interesting thing about Hutchinson's statement is this: if he was lying then why describe a peculiar character out of his habitat....just as it has on this board...it would have engendered far more doubt toward Hutchinson's 'believability' than it would had he described your every day East Ender...Jewish or otherwise. That to me is interesting. Either Hutchinson was unbelievably dim or he was telling the truth.

[Sally]

Hi Mike - thanks for the tip, I'll take a look. Yes, I have read about George W Hutchinson being synonymous with this witness Hutchinson - and I think that could well be the case. The only real sticking point for me is his age - he seems a little young if you believe the press reports - wasn't Hutchinson supposed to be 28? It would be interesting to know for sure - assuming it to be the case, I still don't know that we can be sure of his motives for coming forward. That said, even if his motives were dubious, it's a long leap from being there to being a killer - as I said earlier, I'm not convinced.

Hi Fleetwood Mac - you make a very interesting point, which I confess hadn't occurred to me before. I think you are right - Hutchinson does place a lot of emphasis on the wealth of his man.

I shall have to take some time to think about that one.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Fleetwood Mac - you make a very interesting point, which I confess hadn't occurred to me before. I think you are right - Hutchinson does place a lot of emphasis on the wealth of his man.

I shall have to take some time to think about that one.

Hi Sally.....

Well....it's assumed that Hutchinson couldn't possibly have remembered such detail.....I don't necessarily go with that.....particularly if Hutchinson was preparing to rob him at some point.

And along with this the other thing argument against Hutchinson's testimony being correct is the idea that such a man......wandering round with a gold chain on show for every ruffian and his dog to have a go at....wouldn't have been in that area.....well can't have it both ways....if such a man couldn't have been there then surely Hutchinson wouldn't describe such a man were he lying.

Now I've said in the past I have him down for a crank.....but I just wonder if he was actually telling the truth. Because logically the only thing against him is the level of detail.....but then I suppose some people stop to watch a Ferrari go down the street and take notice of it.

I just wonder if the man was actually straight down the line.

[Sally]

Hi Fleetwood Mac

I take your point - if such a character was so unlikely to have been in the area, then why did the police initally accept Hutchinson's account? I think he even remarks that it was unusual - yet perhaps not unprecedented. I think I'm right in saying that Hutchinson also said he thought he saw the same man again a couple of days later - which would support the view that well-dressed people could and did frequent the area. I am reminded here of the testimony of another witness in the Kelly case who said they saw her with a well dressed man - possibly on the Wednesday? I can't remember who that was at the minute - but you get the general point.

It's an interesting idea - that Hutchinson really did see a wealthy man with Kelly. Who might it have been? Perhaps Druitt.

Well, I think this is just one mystery amongst the vast field of mysteries in this case - so vast it's hard to know where to look first.

My perceptions are, at least, being challenged - and that's always a good thing.

[Ben]

Hi Fleets,

“if such a man couldn't have been there then surely Hutchinson wouldn't describe such a man were he lying.”

The observation is that “such a man” was very unlikely to have ventured into that area at that time, attired in such a fashion and with his gold watch on proud and curiously unbuttoned display, not that it was beyond the realms of possibility. It is fallacious in the extreme, incidentally, to argue that the implausible level of detail in the Hutchinson description somehow increases the chances of it being true. In fact it’s disturbing similar to some of the old arguments I’ve heard touted in favour of the Maybrick diary. Oh yes, the handwriting doesn’t match the real James’ in the slightest, but since no forger could ever be so “unbelievably dim” as to abandon any attempt a emulating James’ penmanship, the diary must be real – or so the Maybrickian argument goes.

It’s such terrible logic.

And yet the idea that Hutchinson could not possibly by lying about Astrakhan man or else he’d have described someone less unlikely and less outlandish conforms to precisely the same pattern of thinking.

The fact that the diary handwriting doesn’t match Maybrick is only evidence that the forgery was a particularly bad one, and the outlandish nature of Hutchinson’s suspect is only an indication that he told a particularly unconvincing lie. It certainly doesn’t lend weight to Hutchinson’s veracity any more than mismatching handwriting lends weight to Maybrick’s authorship of the diary.

So I’m really not sure what it meant when you say we “can’t have it both ways”. One “way” asserts that the Astrahan description was likely to have been fabricated on the basis that;

A) The level of detail is demonstrably implausible if not borderline impossible given the conditions described.

B) It conveniently tallies with various physical components that had already been associated with the popular perception of the ripper’s appearance.

C) The account was discredited by and the Astrakhan man was clearly discarded as a credible ripper sighting.

What other “way” are the people who subscribe, logically and somewhat inescapably, to A, B, and C supposedly having trouble with?

The desire to “rob” another individual certainly does not bestow the putative "robber" with near superhuman powers of observation and recollection, and if such concerns were truly occupying Hutchinson’s mind, it is fathomable that he should have referred to such expensive-looking (i.e. pinchable) accessories when communicating with police?

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hello Sally,

Welcome to the boards!

I note with interest your observations with regard to the proposed Lewis recognition, and would agree that “fear” is perhaps the wrong word when applied to Hutchinson’s motivation for coming forward. It was not so much “fear” that prompted him to approach the police in response to Lewis’ evidence, in my view, but rather the recognition of an opportunity:

An opportunity to vindicate his presence at a crime scene should the need arise.

An opportunity to deflect, or rather sustain, focus in a convenient if bogus direction.

An opportunity to derive a sense of satisfaction from “getting one over” on the police.

An opportunity to keep appraised of police progress.

“I think I'm right in saying that Hutchinson also said he thought he saw the same man again a couple of days later - which would support the view that well-dressed people could and did frequent the area.”

Well, not really. The alleged subsequent sighting is simply another of Hutchinson’s claims, which could easily be false.

And if Druitt was anywhere near Miller’s Court on the night of Kelly’s murder, let alone adorned in Astrakhanian finery, I’ll eat my wideawake hat.

“You should be convinced that Hutchinson is George William Topping Hutchinson after that”

I think if we’re circumspect about this, Mike, the sensible piece of advice to a new member might have been to have a read through the discussions relating to this subject in order that she might draw her own conclusions, rather than informing her that the conclusion she “should” arrive at is the one you personally subscribe to.

“…as there are no other candidates that we know of for the signatures”

…Which is just wrong.

But much more importantly, I hope you had a great birthday!

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"C) The account was discredited by and the Astrakhan man was clearly discarded as a credible ripper sighting."

Not true, I´m afraid - we only know that there was SOMETHING in Hutchinsons testimony that made the police draw the conclusion that he was not correct. And technically, that could have been the description of Astrakhan man, but there are other parametres to consider too.

“From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder.”*
That is what the Echo states, and as you can see, they do not speak about a DESCRIPTION but instead about a STATEMENT questioned. And to from there go to an asseertion that we know what part of the statement the Echo was referring to, is to jump the gun. Let´s not do that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“we only know that there was SOMETHING in Hutchinsons testimony that made the police draw the conclusion that he was not correct.”

Exactly, Fisherman.

That’s really all I was getting at.

It naturally follows, though, that “Mr, Astrakhan” would be dismissed a potential ripper as a by-product of the police drawing “the conclusion that he was not correct”. Other press articles express doubts about the nature of the description, but not in the context of it having been dismissed by police for that reason.

All the best,
Ben

Edit: For completion's sake I should point out that the word I meant to insert after "by" in the extract of my post quoted by Fisherman above was "police".

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"It naturally follows, though, that “Mr, Astrakhan” would be dismissed a potential ripper as a by-product of the police drawing “the conclusion that he was not correct”."

It does, more or less - but that is not to say that the description in itself was what made the police make their call initially. As I said in my former post, there were other parametres to consider, and so far, nobody has been able to pinpoint exactly what it was that called for a dismissal on behalf of Hutchinson.

The best,
Fisherman